Cyphomyrmex laevigatus

AntWiki: The Ants --- Online
Cyphomyrmex laevigatus
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Formicidae
Subfamily: Myrmicinae
Tribe: Attini
Genus: Cyphomyrmex
Species: C. laevigatus
Binomial name
Cyphomyrmex laevigatus
Weber, 1938

Cyphomyrmex laevigatus casent0173956 profile 1.jpg

Cyphomyrmex laevigatus casent0173956 dorsal 1.jpg

Specimen labels

Cyphomyrmex laevigatus seems to be a denizen of the soil in woodland. The Surinam catches came from primary forest and were secured from pitfall traps and desiccated soil samples (Kempf 1966).

Identification

Mera-Rodriguez, et al. (2020) - Mesosoma completely unarmed, propodeum in profile evenly rounded; and petiolar node in dorsal view strikingly transverse, thrice as broad as long (Kempf 1965).

Distribution

Mera-Rodriguez, et al. (2020) - Cyphomyrmex laevigatus is widely distributed in northern South America, including Bolivia, northern Brazil (Amazonas, Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Pará, and Rondônia), Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Perú and Venezuela (Mayhé-Nuñes and Jaffé 1998; Souza et al. 2018).

Latitudinal Distribution Pattern

Latitudinal Range: 9.266667° to -64.36°.

     
North
Temperate
North
Subtropical
Tropical South
Subtropical
South
Temperate

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists

Neotropical Region: Argentina, Bolivia (type locality), Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname.

Distribution based on AntMaps

AntMapLegend.png

Distribution based on AntWeb specimens

Check data from AntWeb

Countries Occupied

Number of countries occupied by this species based on AntWiki Regional Taxon Lists. In general, fewer countries occupied indicates a narrower range, while more countries indicates a more widespread species.
pChart

Estimated Abundance

Relative abundance based on number of AntMaps records per species (this species within the purple bar). Fewer records (to the left) indicates a less abundant/encountered species while more records (to the right) indicates more abundant/encountered species.
pChart


Biology

Explore-icon.png Explore Fungus Growing 
For additional details see Fungus growing ants.

A handful of ant species (approx. 275 out of the known 15,000 species) have developed the ability to cultivate fungus within their nests. In most species the fungus is used as the sole food source for the larvae and is an important resource for the adults as well. Additionally, in a limited number of cases, the fungus is used to construct part of the nest structure but is not as a food source.

These fungus-feeding species are limited to North and South America, extending from the pine barrens of New Jersey, United States, in the north (Trachymyrmex septentrionalis) to the cold deserts in Argentina in the south (several species of Acromyrmex). Species that use fungi in nest construction are known from Europe and Africa (a few species in the genera Crematogaster, Lasius).


The details of fungal cultivation are rich and complex. First, a wide variety of materials are used as substrate for fungus cultivating. The so-called lower genera include species that prefer dead vegetation, seeds, flowers, fruits, insect corpses, and feces, which are collected in the vicinity of their nests. The higher genera include non leaf-cutting species that collect mostly fallen leaflets, fruit, and flowers, as well as the leafcutters that collect fresh leaves from shrubs and trees. Second, while the majority of fungi that are farmed by fungus-feeding ants belong to the family Lepiotaceae, mostly the genera Leucoagaricus and Leucocoprinus, other fungi are also involved. Some species utilise fungi in the family Tricholomataceae while a few others cultivate yeast. The fungi used by the higher genera no longer produce spores. Their fungi produce nutritious and swollen hyphal tips (gongylidia) that grow in bundles called staphylae, to specifically feed the ants. Finally, colony size varies tremendously among these ants. Lower taxa mostly live in inconspicuous nests with 100–1000 individuals and relatively small fungus gardens. Higher taxa, in contrast, live in colonies made of 5–10 million ants that live and work within hundreds of interconnected fungus-bearing chambers in huge subterranean nests. Some colonies are so large, they can be seen from satellite photos, measuring up to 600 m3.

Based on these habits, and taking phylogenetic information into consideration, these ants can be divided into six biologically distinct agricultural systems (with a list of genera involved in each category):

Nest Construction

A limited number of species that use fungi in the construction of their nests.

Lower Agriculture

Practiced by species in the majority of fungus-feeding genera, including those thought to retain more primitive features, which cultivate a wide range of fungal species in the tribe Leucocoprineae.

Coral Fungus Agriculture

Practiced by species in the Apterostigma pilosum species-group, which cultivate fungi within the Pterulaceae.

Yeast Agriculture

Practiced by species within the Cyphomyrmex rimosus species-group, which cultivate a distinct clade of leucocoprineaceous fungi derived from the lower attine fungi.

Generalized Higher Agriculture

Practiced by species in several genera of non-leaf-cutting "higher attine" ants, which cultivate a distinct clade of leucocoprineaceous fungi separately derived from the lower attine fungi.

Leaf-Cutter Agriculture

A subdivision of higher attine agriculture practiced by species within several ecologically dominant genera, which cultivate a single highly derived species of higher attine fungus.

Note that the farming habits of Mycetagroicus (4 species) are unknown. Also, while species of Pseudoatta (2 species) are closely related to the fungus-feeding genus Acromyrmex, they are social parasites, living in the nests of their hosts and are not actively involved in fungus growing. ‎

Castes

Female and male unknown.

Nomenclature

The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's Online Catalogue of the Ants of the World.

  • laevigatus. Cyphomyrmex (Cyphomannia) laevigatus Weber, 1938b: 184, figs. 20, 21 (w.) BOLIVIA.
    • Type-material: lectotype worker (by designation of Kempf, 1966: 178), 11 paralectotype workers.
    • Type-locality: lectotype Bolivia: Lower Rio Madidi, i.1922 (W.M. Mann); paralectotypes with same data.
    • Type-depository: MCZC (lectotype); MCZC, USNM (paralectotypes).
    • Status as species: Weber, 1940a: 408 (in key); Kempf, 1961b: 518; Kempf, 1966: 178 (redescription); Weber, 1966: 166; Kempf, 1968a: 38; Kempf, 1972a: 93; Snelling, R.R. & Longino, 1992: 493; Bolton, 1995b: 168; Wild, 2007b: 33; Bezděčková, et al. 2015: 117; Fernández & Serna, 2019: 850.
    • Distribution: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Peru, Suriname.

Description

Worker

Kempf 1966 Cyphomyrmex 1-13.jpg

Kempf (1966) - (lectotype) Total length 3.5 (3.3-3.7) mm; head length 0.91 (0.85-0.96) mm; head width 0.88 (0.85-0.96) mm; thorax length 1.20 (1.07-1.23) mm; hind femur length 0.91 (0.85-0.94) mm. Rather close to Cyphomyrmex bicornis with the following differential characters:

Head (fig 4) dorsally with vestigial longitudinal rugae. Clypeus with a small to vestigial accessory tooth mesad of antero-lateral one. Auriculate occipital lobes slightly less projecting caudad. Antennal scape rather abruptly thickened after basal third. Eyes with about 9 facets across greatest diameter.

Thorax (fig 26) completely unarmed on dorsum. Pronotal disc laterally rather sharply carinate. Mesoepinotal junction not deeply impressed, but with a distinct mesoepinotal suture. Fore femora dorso-apically with a short longitudinal, lamellate carinule. Hind femora (fig 41) as in bicornis, not longer than maximum head width.

Pedicel (fig 26,32). Petiole much shorter and broader, likewise without dorsal ridges. Postpetiole with a weak impression laterally, discad of posterior border; the latter vestigially notched in the middle.

Hairs minute, fine, strictly appressed, less conspicuous than in bicornis.

Type Material

Kempf (1966) - 12 workers from a single nest series; 4 workers (lectotype and paratypes) examined (NAW, MCZ).

References

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

  • Alonso L. E., J. Persaud, and A. Williams. 2016. Biodiversity assessment survey of the south Rupununi Savannah, Guyana. BAT Survey Report No.1, 306 pages.
  • Escalante Gutiérrez J. A. 1993. Especies de hormigas conocidas del Perú (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Revista Peruana de Entomología 34:1-13.
  • Fernandes I., and J. de Souza. 2018. Dataset of long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the influence areas of a hydroelectric power plant on the Madeira River in the Amazon Basin. Biodiversity Data Journal 6: e24375.
  • Fernández, F. and S. Sendoya. 2004. Lista de las hormigas neotropicales. Biota Colombiana Volume 5, Number 1.
  • Franco W., N. Ladino, J. H. C. Delabie, A. Dejean, J. Orivel, M. Fichaux, S. Groc, M. Leponce, and R. M. Feitosa. 2019. First checklist of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of French Guiana. Zootaxa 4674(5): 509-543.
  • Groc S., J. Orivel, A. Dejean, J. Martin, M. Etienne, B. Corbara, and J. H. C. Delabie. 2009. Baseline study of the leaf-litter ant fauna in a French Guianese forest. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2: 183-193.
  • Kempf W. W. 1968. A new species of Cyphomyrmex from Colombia, with further remarks on the genus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 28: 35-41.
  • Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalago abreviado das formigas da regiao Neotropical (Hym. Formicidae) Studia Entomologica 15(1-4).
  • Kusnezov N. 1953. La fauna mirmecológica de Bolivia. Folia Universitaria. Cochabamba 6: 211-229.
  • Lapola D. M., and H. G. Fowler. 2008. Questioning the implementation of habitat corridors: a case study in interior São Paulo using ants as bioindicators. Braz. J. Biol., 68(1): 11-20.
  • Miranda P. N., F. B. Baccaro, E. F. Morato, M. A. Oliveira. J. H. C. Delabie. 2017. Limited effects of low-intensity forest management on ant assemblages in southwestern Amazonian forests. Biodivers. Conserv. DOI 10.1007/s10531-017-1368-y
  • Palacio G., E.E. and F. Fernandez. 1995. Hormigas de Colombia V: Neuvos registros. Tacaya 4:6-7
  • Pires de Prado L., R. M. Feitosa, S. Pinzon Triana, J. A. Munoz Gutierrez, G. X. Rousseau, R. Alves Silva, G. M. Siqueira, C. L. Caldas dos Santos, F. Veras Silva, T. Sanches Ranzani da Silva, A. Casadei-Ferreira, R. Rosa da Silva, and J. Andrade-Silva. 2019. An overview of the ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the state of Maranhao, Brazil. Pap. Avulsos Zool. 59: e20195938.
  • Snelling R. R., and J. T. Longino. 1992. Revisionary notes on the fungus-growing ants of the genus Cyphomyrmex, rimosus group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini). Pp. 479-494 in: Quintero, D.; Aiello, A. (eds.) 1992. Insects of Panama and Mesoamerica: selected studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, xxii + 692 pp.
  • Weber N. A. 1938. The biology of the fungus-growing ants. Part IV. Additional new forms. Part V. The Attini of Bolivia. Rev. Entomol. (Rio J.) 9: 154-206.
  • Wild, A. L.. "A catalogue of the ants of Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)." Zootaxa 1622 (2007): 1-55.